You are on page 1of 46

How to write a

great research paper

Simon Peyton Jones
Microsoft Research, Cambridge

Fallacy Good papers and

we write papers and give
talks mainly to impress
talks are a
others, gain recognition, and
get promoted
fundamental part of
research excellence
Papers communicate ideas
 Your goal: to infect the mind of your reader with
your idea, like a virus
 Papers are far more durable than programs (think

The greatest ideas are (literally) worthless if

you keep them to yourself
Writing papers: model 1
Idea W rite paper
Writing papers: model 2
Idea W rite paper

Idea W rite paper Do research

 Forces us to be clear, focused

 Crystallises what we don’t understand
 Opens the way to dialogue with others: reality check,
critique, and collaboration
Do not be intimidated
Fallacy You need to have a fantastic idea before you can
write a paper or give a talk. (Everyone else seems

Write a paper,
and give a talk, about

any idea,
no matter how weedy and insignificant it may seem
to you
Do not be intimidated
Write a paper, and give a talk, about any idea, no
matter how insignificant it may seem to you

 Writing the paper is how you develop the idea in the

first place
 It usually turns out to be more interesting and challenging
that it seemed at first
The purpose of your paper
The purpose of your paper is...

To convey
your idea
...from your head to your reader’s head

Everything serves this single goal

The purpose of your paper is not...

To describe the
WizWoz system

 Your reader does not have a WizWoz

 She is primarily interested in re-usable brain-stuff, not
executable artefacts
Conveying the idea I wish I knew
how to solve
 Here is a problem
 It’s an interesting problem
 It’s an unsolved problem I see how
that works.
 Here is my idea Ingenious!

 My idea works (details, data)

 Here’s how my idea compares to other people’s
 Abstract (4 sentences)
 Introduction (1 page)
 The problem (1 page)
 My idea (2 pages)
 The details (5 pages)
 Related work (1-2 pages)
 Conclusions and further work (0.5 pages)
The abstract
 I usually write the abstract last
 Used by program committee members to decide
which papers to read
 Four sentences [Kent Beck]
1. State the problem
2. Say why it’s an interesting problem
3. Say what your solution achieves
4. Say what follows from your solution

1. Many papers are badly written and hard to

2. This is a pity, because their good ideas may go
3. Following simple guidelines can dramatically
improve the quality of your papers
4. Your work will be used more, and the feedback
you get from others will in turn improve your
 Abstract (4 sentences)
 Introduction (1 page)
 The problem (1 page)
 My idea (2 pages)
 The details (5 pages)
 Related work (1-2 pages)
 Conclusions and further work (0.5 pages)
The introduction (1 page)
1. Describe the problem
2. State your contributions
...and that is all
Describe the problem

Use an
example to
the problem
State your contributions
 Write the list of contributions first
 The list of contributions drives the entire paper:
the paper substantiates the claims you have made
 Reader thinks “gosh, if they can really deliver this,
that’s be exciting; I’d better read on”
State your contributions

Bulleted list of

Do not leave the reader to

guess what your contributions
Contributions should be refutable

We describe the WizWoz system. We give the syntax and semantics of a language
It is really cool. that supports concurrent processes (Section 3).
Its innovative features are...

We study its properties We prove that the type system is sound, and
that type checking is decidable (Section 4)

We have used WizWoz in practice We have built a GUI toolkit in WizWoz, and
used it to implement a text editor (Section 5).
The result is half the length of the Java version.
No “rest of this paper is...”
 Not: “The rest of this paper is structured as follows. Section
2 introduces the problem. Section 3 ... Finally, Section 8

 Instead, use forward references from the

narrative in the introduction.
The introduction (including the contributions) should
survey the whole paper, and therefore forward
reference every important part.
 Abstract (4 sentences)
 Introduction (1 page)
 The problem (1 page)
 My idea (2 pages)
 The details (5 pages)
 Related work (1-2 pages)
 Conclusions and further work (0.5 pages)
No related work yet!


Your reader Your idea

We adopt the notion of transaction from Brown [1], as modified for distributed
systems by White [2], using the four-phase interpolation algorithm of Green [3].
Our work differs from White in our advanced revocation protocol, which deals with
the case of priority inversion as described by Yellow [4].
No related work yet
 Problem 1: describing alternative I feel
approaches gets between the reader
and your idea
 Problem 2: the reader knows nothing
about the problem yet; so your (carefully
trimmed) description of various technical
tradeoffs is absolutely incomprehensible
I feel

Concentrate single-mindedly on a narrative that

 Describes the problem, and why it is interesting
 Describes your idea
 Defends your idea, showing how it solves the problem,
and filling out the details
On the way, cite relevant work in passing, but defer
discussion to the end
The payload of your paper

Consider a bufircuated semi-lattice D, over a hyper-modulated signature

S. Suppose pi is an element of D. Then we know for every such pi
there is an epi-modulus j, such that pj < pi.

 Sounds impressive...but
 Sends readers to sleep
 In a paper you MUST provide the details,
but FIRST convey the idea
The payload of your paper

Introduce the problem, and your

idea, using

and only then present the general
The Simon PJ question:
Using examples is there any typewriter

right away
Conveying the idea
 Explain it as if you were speaking to someone using
a whiteboard
 Conveying the intuition is primary, not secondary
 Once your reader has the intuition, she can follow
the details (but not vice versa)
 Even if she skips the details, she still takes away
something valuable
 Your introduction makes claims
 The body of the paper provides evidence to
support each claim
 Check each claim in the introduction, identify the
evidence, and forward-reference it from the claim
 Evidence can be: analysis and comparison, theorems,
measurements, case studies
 Abstract (4 sentences)
 Introduction (1 page)
 The problem (1 page)
 My idea (2 pages)
 The details (5 pages)
 Related work (1-2 pages)
 Conclusions and further work (0.5 pages)
Related work

Fallacy To make my work look good, I have to

make other people’s work look bad
The truth: credit is not like money

Giving credit to others does not diminish

the credit you get from your paper

 Warmly acknowledge people who have helped you

 Be generous to the competition. “In his inspiring paper
[Foo98] Foogle shows.... We develop his foundation in the
following ways...”
 Acknowledge weaknesses in your approach
Credit is not like money

Failing to give credit to others can kill

your paper

If you imply that an idea is yours, and the referee knows it is

not, then either
 You don’t know that it’s an old idea (bad)
 You do know, but are pretending it’s yours (very bad)
Making sure related work is accurate

 A good plan: when you think you are done, send the
draft to the competition saying “could you help me
ensure that I describe your work fairly?”.
 Often they will respond with helpful critique
 They are likely to be your referees anyway, so getting
their comments up front is jolly good.
The process
 Start early. Very early.
 Hastily-written papers get rejected.
 Papers are like wine: they need time to mature
 Collaborate
 Use CVS to support collaboration
Getting help
Get your paper read by as many friendly
guinea pigs as possible
 Experts are good
 Non-experts are also very good
 Each reader can only read your paper for the first time
once! So use them carefully
 Explain carefully what you want (“I got lost here” is much
more important than “wibble is mis-spelt”.)
Listening to your reviewers
Every review is gold dust
Be (truly) grateful for criticism as well as

This is really, really, really hard

But it’s really, really, really, really, really, really

Listening to your reviewers

 Read every criticism as a positive suggestion for

something you could explain more clearly
 DO NOT respond “you stupid person, I meant X”.
Fix the paper so that X is apparent even to the
stupidest reader.
 Thank them warmly. They have given up their time
for you.
Language and style
Basic stuff
 Submit by the deadline
 Keep to the length restrictions
 Do not narrow the margins
 Do not use 6pt font
 On occasion, supply supporting evidence (e.g.
experimental data, or a written-out proof) in an appendix
 Always use a spell checker
Visual structure
 Give strong visual structure to your paper using
 sections and sub-sections
 bullets
 italics
 laid-out code
 Find out how to draw pictures, and use them
Visual structure
Use the active voice
The passive voice is “respectable” but it DEADENS your paper. Avoid
it at all costs.
“We” = you
and the

It can be seen that... We can see that...
34 tests were run We ran 34 tests
These properties were thought We wanted to retain these
desirable properties “We” = the
It might be thought that this would You might think this would be a
be a type error type error

“You” = the
Use simple, direct language

The object under study was displaced
The ball moved sideways

On an annual basis Yearly

Endeavour to ascertain Find out

It could be considered that the speed of

storage reclamation left something to be The garbage collector was really slow

If you remember nothing else:

 Identify your key idea

 Make your contributions explicit

 Use examples

A good starting point:

“Advice on Research and Writing”